NR's blurb isn't very well worded (and who do they expect will see it?). One bullet point just seems to ban anything over 1 metre but elsewhere it says "You may bring a large item (more than 1 metre in any dimension), but only if you are able to carry it without assistance" with no actual size limit. Even the latest Conditions of Travel (ooh, just out, dated 30th July 2026) only have maximum dimensions - smaller than many suitcases - for a few specific items which seems unfair on musicians and furniture restorers in particular.  I've also got a surfboard which is only 80cm long and takes up next to no space but is specifically banned because someone at RDG thinks all surfboards are like the ones on Baywatch!

TfL incidentally do have a 2 metre general limit in their Conditions of Carriage which seems sensible, particularly for true tube stock.

 

Another yellow card to TG for encouraging the learned member for Minehead. 

 

A few weeks back I travelled from Charlbury to Hereford, and with an advance First being cheaper than Standard, I went first class for perhaps the first time in 20 years. Happily accepted the seat it picked for me, only to find on boarding the train that it had no windows at all. Cattle class with no windows I get, though I agree they should be replaced with luggage racks. But First...?

Fortunately (for some value of "fortunately") the train wasn't too busy so I could find another seat, but since it ended up being 1hr+ late it was effectively free. Perhaps just as well given the aircon had packed up and it was one of those 30°C+ days...

 
A thought provoking post!

Firstly, I had to get my measuring tape to me favourite "main" travel bag/case (it's a soft bodied one, and I'm never sure if it's a bag or case!) as I'm hopeless at estimating dimensions and it was comfortably less, as was my old backpack that it largely superseded when I realised that I had reached the age when having wheels on a bag/case had become a welcome facility rather than a sign of decadence.

Having re-assured myself on this, I recalled that in the days when Turbos were not a fleet of tired old trains scattered throughout the GWR network filling gaps not covered by other equally old stock, the North Downs line used the two types (165s, simple high-density stock with minimal comforts, and 166s, with "air-con", some seats in the centre coach in groups of four around tables, and 3 tip-up seats at one end of this coach creating a small-but-useful luggage space) sensibly. The 165s were used on the all-stops services from Reading to Redhill or Shalford, the 166s on the alternative semi-fasts limited stop services going all the way to Gatwick.

In due course this arrangement seems to have broken down, and by the time my daily North Downs commute came to an end with Covid in 2020, the line was (it seemed) almost entirely run using 165s, and even before many Turbos were cascaded following electrification to Didcot it seemed to have become random as to which type was used on which service.

It really did make a difference. A peak (or shoulder) hours Gatwick train during the busy holiday period using a 165 really struggled. It doesn't take too many large airline cases in vestibules or taking up seats to have quite a material adverse impact on the comfort and convenience of all passengers.

So yes please, more luggage space. I'd suggest that those wretched seats on IETs with no windows be removed to provide them!  

  

 
It's an interesting one.

I often see customers getting on/off trains at Reading staggering under the size and weight of luggage that if carried by air would probably involve remortgaging the house to pay for.

It is rather inconsiderate especially on busy trains where there is nowhere near sufficient storage, it takes up space, can be dangerous and is often placed on seats.

Maybe an excess luggage fee could be charged - certainly if someone decides that their suitcase needs a seat they should be charged the full price for a ticket.

I guess in the old days the Guard's van came in handy in these circumstances?

 
Not sure why it's Network Rail who have chosen to stick its head above the parapet on this as they've hardly been the ones that have contributed to the issue. If we take GWR's restriction of 'No item of accompanied luggage with any dimension greater than 90cm' that's my ordinary travel rucksack out of the window as well as the otherwise very portable unnamed musical instrument of choice. This also brings to mind past rail travel with a 5' 5" paddle boat hook, the coracle, a 12 foot pair of oars (though not all at the one time) but that's me rather than the more general population.

GWR's current bête noire must be the accompanied flight suitcases that make their way through their rail network like antelope corpses through an anaconda. The DfT having happily specc'd a train interior intended for the morning commuter run inbound from Reading - conveniently overlooking that the trains would also serve everywhere from Penzance to Pembroke, the result is a situation of frequent low level (and not so low level) conflict.

One solution would be dedicated luggage space, which brings the shackles of additional staff resources needed, extended (booked and in the timetable) station stops for the resultant admin. Links below are NR's Bluesky post and their linked media release. But perhaps a slightly more flexible interior space would have greatly helped with this and also provided space for children to travel in their wheeled containers rather than everyone facing the disruption arising from their forced removal from said containers when they're taken aboard a train.

(It goes without saying that the people responsible for the cycle space on the IEPs will be looking forward to a very interesting conversation at the pearly gates...)

Mark

https://bsky.app/profile/networkrail.bsky.social/post/3mrub5x7yej2d

https://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/plan-ahead-and-pack-smart-as-millions-take-to-the-rails-this-summer